On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 03:22, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:05:56 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 03:03, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> > At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:57:40 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 02:38, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> >> > At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:29:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> >> it also breaks >> >> >> valid C code if there were side effects in the (cond) as any other >> >> >> macro which does not properly utilize every argument exactly once. >> >> > >> >> > BTW, what do you mean this exactly? >> >> >> >> any potent statement. such as assignment or pre/post increment/decrement or ... >> > >> > Well, in that case, such a code itself is buggy :) >> >> i'm not advocating doing this sort of thing, i'm saying that >> functions/macros should be written correctly so as to not break >> standard C behavior. a guy developing a codec driver could waste a >> lot of time because of this sort of thing. > > Well, no, it's a clear bug of the driver. > > A macro that ignores arguments is normal. Or do you think assert() > isn't a part of "standard" C ? :) we arent talking about assert() here nor are we talking about assert() behavior, but i would say it was a poor decision. the fact that it's called snd_BUG_ON() instead of snd_WARN_ON() is also a bit broken imo. BUG() kills the kernel while WARN() complains, and snd_BUG_ON() is clearly in the latter category. that said, you could just define snd_BUG_ON() in terms of WARN_ON() all the time: #ifdef CONFIG_SND_DEBUG # define SND_DEBUG 1 #else # define SND_DEBUG 0 #endif #define snd_BUG() WARN(SND_DEBUG, "BUG?\n") #define snd_BUG_ON(cond) WARN(SND_DEBUG && (cond), "BUG? (%s)\n", __stringify(cond)) -mike _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
